Slashdot Mirror
NASA Considers Apollo-Era F1 Engine For Space Launch System
MarkWhittington writes "A company named Dynetics, in partnership with Pratt & Whitney Rocketdyne, will perform a study contract for NASA to explore whether a modern version of the Saturn V F1 booster (PDF) could be used on the Space Launch System. These would be the basis for a liquid fueled rocket that would enhance the SLS to make it capable of launching 130 metric tons to low Earth orbit, thus making it capable of supporting deep space exploration missions in the 2020s."
I would LOVE to see the F1 back in action. Few things have inspired such awe in me as the launch of a Saturn V rocket and the five tremendous columns of fire atop which it strode.
"Tell me doctor, with all of your defenses, are there any provisions for an attack by killer bees?"
Is there any reason we shouldn't recycle designs when it comes to rocket engines? Of course (maybe?) we could use modern tools to help improve efficiency but is there anything to gain by starting from scratch?
I really wish I understood more about rocketry and satellites :/
This is what I like about rocket engines. A rocket engine designed for a specific load in the 60s and today would have nearly the same design. A modernized F1 is entirely logical.
And before people complain about rocket engines not advancing at the same rate as microprocessors, let me note that the cost of a rocket is primarily determined by its complexity, not the cost of fuel or the size of the engines. A simple rocket engine (like the F1) that burns kerosene and oxygen is often cheaper than super advanced rocket engines like those on the Space Shuttle.
The F-1 wasn't a booster, it was an engine. The booster stage using the F-1 was the S-1C.
General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
The F1 was designed on blackboards and drafting tables. A "modern" F1 is only going to be similar in size - it'd have to be a clean sheet design, the facilities that built the F1 are long gone at this point. Why even study redesigning the F1? This seems like a tremendous waste. Of course it's going to be a clean sheet, computer drafted design.
Money for a study on a stone age rocket design* seems like a federal handout, nothing more.
*although the Saturn V's anti-oscillation system is pretty inspired... for it's time
moox. for a new generation.
Generally speaking, in rocket design, 'efficient' == 'expensive, temperamental, and hard to reuse'. Fuel is cheap, engines are expensive, so if you can throw more fuel at the problem you're usually better off than getting the last 10% efficiency out of the engine through complex design and materials.
Am I the only one who was wondering what NASA was going to be doing with a Cosworth DFV?
Wouldn't it be more cost effective for NASA to just use the upcoming SpaceX Merlin 2 engine? The design documents state that the Merlin 2 should provide 890 kN more thrust than the old F1 engine and should be much more efficient. Plus, the Merlin 2 has the benefit of being already in active development: SpaceX expects they'll have it ready for certification within 3 years.
Yeahbut....we wouldn't be basing the new F-1 type engine on the original F-1, we'd be using the F-1A.
The F-1A has 33 percent more thrust than the F-1.
9,189.60 kN for the F-1A versus 7,887 kN for the RD-171
But here is where the real difference comes in:
Lox/RP-1. Thrust to Weight Ratio: 115.71. for the F-1A
It's 82 for your Russian motor. Thus the advantage of using one combustion chamber compared to using 4.
Modern materials should lighten the F-1A and modern controls should improve efficiency and thrust even more to improve the thrust to weight ratio.
Why the Russians never use large combustion chambers and why you see 4 of them on the RD-171: They never solved the problem of combustion instability beyond a certain size. We did.
--
BMO
You're forgetting the purpose of a rocket: to put something useful into space. Getting a rocket and a bunch of fuel into space is worthless by itself. More fuel means less payload.
So we're getting the Nazis to build this one too?
Right now, this is nothing more than a GD neo-con job's bill that will waste another 10-20 billion, 10 years to get a rocket that will launch 70 tonnes to LEO at $1-3 Billion per launch.
.5B/launch.
.5B and under launcher, then we will no doubt see many many launches, space stations and most importantly, stations on the moon and mars.
Instead, a far better solution is to create a COTS-SHLV for 2 Super heavy launch vehicles that are in the range of 150 +- 20 tonnes to LEO. Two American companies would get 5 billion each over 5 years total to design, build and test the rockets which have to have no less than 85% American construction/parts. Upon the successful completion of these, another contest would be held for 2 companies to win a contract of 2 launches a year for 4 years. In addition, who ever is the cheapest would then get a 3rd launch, at the same price as the other 2. The max can only be
With this approach, we could have multiple launch systems that can then be used to back each other up, but also can be used to launch private industry as well as military. And once there are 2 launch systems with cheap prices, and can do 150 tonnes to LEO, you can bet on it that we will see a major build-up of private space.
OTOH, the SLS is PROHIBITED by law from doing private launches. It can only by used by NASA and the DOD. And from the DOD's POV, they would rather have much cheaper prices then 1-3 billion/launch. However, if private space can do a
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Well there was another engine bigger than the F-1, that is the Airjet M-1. There is a piece of one at the Evergreen Aviation Museum. http://www.evergreenmuseum.org/the-museum/aircraft-exhibits/space-flight/ Very big, very impressive. It was design for 1 1/2 million lb of thrust in the base configuration. It would make a interesting starting point for a updated engine.
Von Braun didn't either but instead worked around it, which was possible using several engines instead of relying on continuous output from a single engine. The F-1 bounced around all over the place, but that was known behaviour.
Is there any reason we shouldn't recycle designs when it comes to rocket engines?
Even considering going back to a 40+ year-old design is an admission of failure - pretty typical for government funded projects, when compared to the private sector. Compare that with all the innovation (admittedly, spurred on by an almost constant state of war) in the 'plane industry. 60 years stood between wooden biplanes and the Jumbo Jet and the US government is now saying that the best way to resurrect their space programme is to start making the rocketry equivalent of a DC-3, again.
politicians are like babies' nappies: they should both be changed regularly and for the same reasons
Fuel is cheap, engines are expensive,
You're looking at this all wrong. Fuel is cheap to manufacture but it's incredibly expensive to carry up to orbit. Especially when the only reason for doing so is because your engines are so badly designed that they waste a lot of fuel in the early stages of flight. In that respect, trying to pinch pennies on engine design, materials and production is a false economy - unless your even more precious commodity is development time, as with the "space race".
If you plan to productionise getting to LEO, it's much better to device a system with the lowest overall cost: that would include not just the cost of the fuel, but the vehicle (disposable/reusable) as well.
politicians are like babies' nappies: they should both be changed regularly and for the same reasons
This. Sure, the F1A fantasy engine gets more thrust - but its still a very old design. There is a modern, closed cycle, engine that gives you similar thrust - and it is available right now, zero development costs. Just swallow your pride and buy Russian.